"Scottish example great for No Campaign" says Neil Herron

Did Holyrood fiasco clip wings of Assembly of the North?
HAMISH MACDONELL
SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR
THE SCOTSMAN
Read online here
THERE is a large white elephant touring the north-east of England. It is the "No" camp’s top campaign tool in the battle over the proposed new assembly for the region. The message is simple - unless you vote "No", this 15-ft high plastic model will become a real white elephant, staffed by politicians, spending your money and based in Durham.

The campaign for devolution in England’s north-east has been slow but is at last gathering pace. It will culminate on Thursday when the votes are counted.

However, there is one shadow hanging over the campaign which Labour Party managers fear will scupper their plans for an assembly in the north-east and might even postpone proposals for devolution across the rest of England - and that is the Holyrood building fiasco. Senior Labour politicians believe that negative publicity over the cost of the Holyrood building has turned the electorate against devolution, and the early indications are that they are right. In many ways the Holyrood building presents a threat which is more real and more frightening for the people of north-east England than abstract threats of jokey white elephants. The scandal over the spiralling cost of the building and its numerous delays is the only aspect of Scottish devolution that many voters in the north-east know about - and they do not want to make the same mistakes in their region.

One Labour MP confirmed that the problems of the Holyrood building had been raised by many voters over the last few weeks of campaigning, and the only way it could be countered was to insist that no new buildings would be constructed to house the North-east Assembly. Joyce Quin, MP for Gateshead East and a passionate supporter of devolution for the region, said: "We have had quite a lot on the Scottish Parliament building (from voters). The news of its cost was not terribly well timed in terms of the north-east England campaign. It is something we have to try to get to grips with." "We are talking here about a much smaller assembly. I do not know anybody who is talking about a new building here, everybody wants to use an existing building."

One campaign worker, handing out "Yes" leaflets in Newcastle city centre, admitted that the £431 million cost of the Holyrood building had caused severe problems. He said: " It’s the cost. People are scared they are going to get the same sort of thing here and that’s all they seem to know about it."

Even Russ Forbes, director of the official "Yes" campaign, admitted: "The Scottish Parliament is undoubtedly our Achilles heel."

James Frayne, director of the "No" campaign, confirmed the suspicious response from the public. He said: "A couple of weeks ago, when the Scottish Parliament was opened it was all over the news and that brought it to the forefront of people’s minds. "We have not majored on it through the campaign but the cost of the building has come up regularly - that and the cost of running something like that, the increased bureaucracy, more politicians and so on. "People haven’t got a very detailed knowledge of what went on in Scotland but they do know about the cost of the building and they say - Scotland wasted a lot of money on a new building, that is what our politicians will do here."

Jack McConnell is due to visit north-east England today to lend his support to the "Yes" campaign, a move which has delighted "No" campaigners who believe the First Minister will simply highlight the problems with devolution in Scotland - particularly the cost of the building.

"The parliament building was the most wonderful thing that could have happened for us," said Neil Herron, a "No" campaigner.

For the government, the devolution campaign in the north-east is extremely important. It is the latest stepping stone in Tony Blair’s plans for devolution across the UK but, at every stage, public enthusiasm has ebbed away.

The contrast with the huge, country-wide build-up to the Scottish devolution referendum in 1999 could not be more stark.

Apart from one small caravan bearing the slogan "Vote Yes for the North East" in the centre of Newcastle, it is possible to travel through the entire region without being aware that there is a major political campaign going on, never mind entering its final stages. There are few placards on lamp-posts, no posters in shop windows and hardly anyone out campaigning.

In fact, it is difficult to avoid the impression that nobody - except John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister - has really thrown their weight behind it for fear of being associated with failure. That detachment by London has started to irk some of devolution’s keenest supporters.

One man, who did not want to be named but who was volunteering in the campaign caravan in Newcastle, said: "London has left us to our own devices. We have no idea what is going on. I know more about the Bush-Kerry campaigns than I do about our own." As the end has got nearer, so the campaigns have become dirtier.

No doubt frustrated by their failure to secure any sort of primacy in the campaign, "Yes" supporters have started flinging mud at their opponents. Sir John Hall, the business tycoon and Newcastle United supremo, is usually an affable and friendly figure but he boiled up into a rage when asked about the tactics of the "No" camp. Sir John stated: "The "No" campaign has been hijacked by the Tories and UKIP. They have brought in people from outside to run the campaign. They have just used UKIP’s call centre in Preston, turning it into a political, Conservative-UKIP controlled campaign. "It’s no longer about the north-east. We are guinea pigs for all of these people, trying to defeat the government on devolution. They are morally bankrupt of any ideas."

Mr Frayne, from the "No" camp, admitted that his supporters had been given access to UKIP’s phone bank but insisted that was totally above board and was used to allow them to access 1,000 calls an hour, something which would have been impossible without outside help. He refused to accept the "No" camp was a front for right-wing political parties. "We have not had any corporate donations from them," he said. In essence, the contest has come down to a battle between two quite fashionable ideas: devolution versus fewer politicians. The "Yes" camp’s main argument is that it is better for local politicians to make decisions affecting the north-east than to rely on people hundred of miles away in London. Supporters of the assembly claim it would have powers to set and act on economic development, planning, housing, public health as well as partial control over skills and transport. They refute the suggestion that it will just mean more politicians, arguing that a corresponding restructuring of local government will actually reduce the number of local politicians. The "No" camp claim the assembly will be a toothless talking shop creating more politicians and bureaucrats and will end up being as waste of money, diverting resources from more needy areas.

The latest campaign forecasts suggest it is the "No" camp’s arguments which are starting to hold sway but, as always, the result will come down to which side does better in getting its vote out. The bad news for Labour ministers is that the Scottish devolution experience is helping get the vote out, but not in the way they would like.